Bible Interpretation - Part 2

Forums: Spirituality And Religion, Religion, The Bible, The Gospel
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Forgive me if this is not as coherent as I'd like, it's been one of those days.

Saw the thread Bible Interpretation - just scanned a few pages, I think my question is much more basic.

Backgound (this is not what is in question, it's just to give one an idea of where I going with my post)- My personal belief: The bible, meaning the old testament, is not to be taken literally. It was written down eventually from spoken stories, whose purpose was to teach moral lessons.
Not to say there are not certain historic events that ended up in the Old Testament - but from a spiritual standpoint, the lessons learned could have been written today and ended up in the relegious or self help sections of the barnes and noble. That is to say, the old testament is as inspired by God as anything written at any other time, including today.

The new testament, that's a little tricker to express, or I'm sure I'll be corrected by someone who can quote page and verse.
I'm no bible scholar, and my intention is not to sound like I am.
I'm not even discussing whether Jesus was the son of God.

What I'm aiming at are the parables told by Jesus and their interpretation, along with the parables of the old testament.

Whew.
Ok, here's my problem.

When for instance, speaking to a Fundamentalist Christian, I am told the entire bible is to be taken literally.
However, when I've presented/asked how this can be so as there have been various versions of the bible accepted by Christians throughout the ages, I'm told the changes came about because of interpretations.

So - I'm thinking (interpreting) that it's is all right that a version of the bible that is accepted today by various relegions, that did not exist not all that long ago, because someone interpreted it differently than what an earlier reader did.
In other words the bible being accepted as being literal today, is not the bible that was accepted as being literal at other times.
Doesn't that go against the very meaning of taking something literally?

Related to that, you can go into your local barnes and noble and find books and books (and books and books) about the bible, old and new, mostly I suppose, explaining, interpreting what was being said, what was supposed to be taken literally.
I have said this before, I'm sure winning no friends on the fundamentalist side, but I'll say it again. The bible is a fine book, but frankly, no better than other books of the time, or today.
It's a few hundred pages, and in the time I've spent scanning the relegion forum more has been said ABOUT the bible than how many words are in the bible.
Again, if the bible is the literal truth, why all the interpretation?

From my personal experience, insulting to some or not, is, christians who are really big on the whole new testament thing do more twisting of words than anything else.
Why I have chosen not to come to this forum recently is mostly because when I see views expressed other than from a christian, there is a response from the christian factor that becomes so convuluted I can't even follow it. Always with the caveat of course of something to the effect of "now I'm just speaking for myself" or "a REAL christian doesn't...."

I'm not looking for a debate, if one developes, I'd be interested in following it, but not necessarily participating. My input is small and simple, I can't quote from the good book, I'm not saying the bible is true or false.
Just asking how anything can be called the literal truth, but subject to interpretation.

If my knowledge of such is called into question, fine, I'm no authority, I'm also no fool.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 5 • Views: 4,300 • Replies: 46

No top replies

Fundamentalist Christians really are the fringe of Christianity (though they do seem to get more press). The specific version of the Bible that these folks consider sacred is the King James version (and, of course, King James made absolutely sure it was an absolutely faithful interpretation of the Bible into English). Of course, an even more obvious problem are the contradictions--how can you take the whole Bible as literal when it contradicts itself (e.g., 'turn the other cheek' vs. 'an eye for an eye').

0 Replies

Re: Bible Interpretation - Part 2

Chai Tea wrote:

Forgive me if this is not as coherent as I'd like, it's been one of those days.

Saw the thread Bible Interpretation - just scanned a few pages, I think my question is much more basic.

Backgound (this is not what is in question, it's just to give one an idea of where I going with my post)- My personal belief: The bible, meaning the old testament, is not to be taken literally. It was written down eventually from spoken stories, whose purpose was to teach moral lessons.
Not to say there are not certain historic events that ended up in the Old Testament - but from a spiritual standpoint, the lessons learned could have been written today and ended up in the relegious or self help sections of the barnes and noble. That is to say, the old testament is as inspired by God as anything written at any other time, including today.

The new testament, that's a little tricker to express, or I'm sure I'll be corrected by someone who can quote page and verse.
I'm no bible scholar, and my intention is not to sound like I am.
I'm not even discussing whether Jesus was the son of God.

What I'm aiming at are the parables told by Jesus and their interpretation, along with the parables of the old testament.

Whew.
Ok, here's my problem.

When for instance, speaking to a Fundamentalist Christian, I am told the entire bible is to be taken literally.
However, when I've presented/asked how this can be so as there have been various versions of the bible accepted by Christians throughout the ages, I'm told the changes came about because of interpretations.

So - I'm thinking (interpreting) that it's is all right that a version of the bible that is accepted today by various relegions, that did not exist not all that long ago, because someone interpreted it differently than what an earlier reader did.
In other words the bible being accepted as being literal today, is not the bible that was accepted as being literal at other times.
Doesn't that go against the very meaning of taking something literally?

Related to that, you can go into your local barnes and noble and find books and books (and books and books) about the bible, old and new, mostly I suppose, explaining, interpreting what was being said, what was supposed to be taken literally.
I have said this before, I'm sure winning no friends on the fundamentalist side, but I'll say it again. The bible is a fine book, but frankly, no better than other books of the time, or today.
It's a few hundred pages, and in the time I've spent scanning the relegion forum more has been said ABOUT the bible than how many words are in the bible.
Again, if the bible is the literal truth, why all the interpretation?

From my personal experience, insulting to some or not, is, christians who are really big on the whole new testament thing do more twisting of words than anything else.
Why I have chosen not to come to this forum recently is mostly because when I see views expressed other than from a christian, there is a response from the christian factor that becomes so convuluted I can't even follow it. Always with the caveat of course of something to the effect of "now I'm just speaking for myself" or "a REAL christian doesn't...."

I'm not looking for a debate, if one developes, I'd be interested in following it, but not necessarily participating. My input is small and simple, I can't quote from the good book, I'm not saying the bible is true or false.
Just asking how anything can be called the literal truth, but subject to interpretation.

If my knowledge of such is called into question, fine, I'm no authority, I'm also no fool.

Hi Chai Tea,

The fundamentalist view of the Bible is not always that of a literal interpretation. That is somewhat of a caricature put forth by those who do not hold the same view.

Fundamentalists recognize that, for instance, Jesus sometimes spoke in parables which were illustrative stories and not stories literally only about trees and wheat and birds.

That is not to say that all fundamentalists communicate their views well. That probably is not the case, just as all atheists do not articulate their own position well or understand the logical (or sometimes the lack of logical) ramifications of what they assert.

But if you converse with a fundamentalist who states that he believes the Bible literally, and you ask him about such things as parables, he will most likely tell you that Jesus was not only speaking of trees and wheat, but of larger issues using these illustrations.

The essence of the fundamentalist view is not literalism, but inspiration. The fundamentalist believes that the Bible does express the words that God specifically led men to write.

Since the Bible was written long ago in (primarily) in Greek and Hebrew it is necessary that it be translated into hundreds of languages to be available to the whole world. Each of these languages is itself constantly changing, growing , developing; posing a knotty problem for Bible translators.

Translators, for the most part, view the Bible as God's word and so are as thorough and dedicated as they can be to faithfully translate the text in an accurate but understandable way.

The huge number of English translations causes some to ask "Which one is right?" In some respects the differences between these translations are few in number, when compared to the massive number of words, sentences, verses etc that had to be dealt with.

While there are some differences that are more serious in nature, the fact of the matter is that the everyday reader of the Bible, if he takes it seriously as God's word and tries to live in accordance with Jesus' commands, is seldom if ever going to be led seriously astray by any of these problems. A casual reader who takes one verse or two and runs with it to the exclusion of all else, might be. ( "HMMM, this verse says 'Judas went and hanged himself' " then turning the page "HMMMMM this verse says ' Go and do likewise' " )

But how do you know which passages of the Bible to take "literally" ? The same way you do in ordinary conversation, by usage and context.

If your friend tells you she was "scared to death" , you are most likely not going to ask her if she is really dead or not, are you? You recognize thru common usage that it is a figurative expression using hyperbole to show how very very scared she was.

Folks in the Bible were real folks who also sometimes used figures of speech. The best advice for deciding what is and is not literal or figurative is to read the Bible, all of it. Read it often. Familiarize yourself with the way people in it talked and you will begin to understand just as you do when talking to folks today.

The reason many people understand the Bible so poorly or not at all is that they read a little here and a little there and want to think they are somehow familiar with it when they are not.

Well, Chai Tea, I hope that is a little clearer than mud.

0 Replies

I'll go along with real here. The bible is full of idiomatic statements which should not be taken literally. The seven 'days' of creation are not equal to 24 hours each in length any more than my grandfather's 'day' represented only one date on the calendar.

The confusion has been compounded because both believers and non believers have exploited these incorrect interpretations, the former to oppress the flock, the latter to attack as straw men. Their motivation to do so is the moral license such misrepresentation provides.

0 Replies

So -
Being told a person believes literally in the bible, for example in the case of the story of creation, is essentially meaningless?

I know people who would tell you the world was created in 7 days, period.

That Adam named every single animal, period.
(In that case, how did he name the fishes?)

That a rain flooded the entire earth and the only survivors were on the ark, period.

and so on.

Also, I have a question as to whose interpretation a person chooses to follow.
Why is one persons interpretation better than another persons?
Why is the King James accepted instead of the Chai Tea version?

Who is to say the homeless guy on the corner doesn't have the true meaning?
If that person announces that unless you believe in his version, you will go to hell, he is laughed at.

When someone stands at a pulpit and says unless you believe in a certain version, you will go to hell, people say they believe.

What makes one persons interpretation better than anothers?

Actually, I take back what I said about using parables as an example.
Did the Red Sea part? Or did a portion of the Sea evaporate enough for people to be able to get across? Was the army following them right behind them? Or 1 or 2 weeks behind them?
Did the soldiers get drowned because a wall of water crashed down on them, a la Charlton Heston, or since they were 2 weeks behind, did it just rain enough that the sea level rose, and some drowned trying to cross.

Remember playing 'telephone' as a child? The initial message couldn't get passed correct over 5 people.

As real life said 'how does one know what parts to take literally? by usage and context.

Whose usage? Whose context?
Why are not certain events some believe literally happened not seen in the context of a parable.

My usage of the terms fundamentalist, christian, etc. I suppose I should say drop that, I was trying for the noun that names people who believe that events written in the bible actually happened, word for word. Call them what you will.

0 Replies

The bible was not written as a scientific treatise or for the exclusive use of a priesthood. Most of the translations are faithful to the original texts; so you should be able to find the truth in any of them.

Also, the truth should be evident early in the presentation. Remember the word 'gospel' means 'good news'.

0 Replies

Hi Chai Tea,

I don't mean to leave you with the impression that NONE of the Bible is to be understood literally. Some of it certainly is, a lot of it actually.

But EVERYTHING in the Bible is not written in a literal fashion.

God did literally create the world and all that is in it.

Noah did literally build an ark and survive the Flood with his family.

Moses did literally go through the Red Sea on dry ground.

Jesus did literally rise from the grave.

These would be considered fundamentalist positions, no problem using that word if it is helpful.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

The bible was not written as a scientific treatise or for the exclusive use of a priesthood. Most of the translations are faithful to the original texts; so you should be able to find the truth in any of them.

Also, the truth should be evident early in the presentation. Remember the word 'gospel' means 'good news'.

well thanks, but this does not address my subject.
actually, it's an excellant example of what I mentioned above regarding following a different agenda.
For instance, the comment that most texts remain faithful to the original.
I'm just supposed to accept that with no proof?

I am not looking for encouragement to read the bible, or study the gospels. I'm looking to have my original posting discussed. I suppose I can say I am not looking for spiritual guidance, but for the reason some people believe literally in the bible, unless is gets interpreted differently along the line, which are quite opposite takes on it, from my understanding.
What I'm asking is not that complicated -

I did not mean to be as involved as this, but I am not surprised. By being vague with replies I against my better judgement need to keep trying to clarify, reword something that started out being very simple.

Perhaps we need to hear from those who DO believe in the literal interpretation of the bible. In other words, the type of person I am addressing my thread to.

Any takers

0 Replies

The bible itself often refers to its symbolism. What do you mean?

I belive the entire bible is inspired by God. But I go back to my first answer. Apparent inconsistencies and misconstrued allegorical or metaphorical statements have been exploited by those whose agenda is not from God.

0 Replies

Mills75 wrote:

Fundamentalist Christians really are the fringe of Christianity (though they do seem to get more press). The specific version of the Bible that these folks consider sacred is the King James version (and, of course, King James made absolutely sure it was an absolutely faithful interpretation of the Bible into English). Of course, an even more obvious problem are the contradictions--how can you take the whole Bible as literal when it contradicts itself (e.g., 'turn the other cheek' vs. 'an eye for an eye').

Your example does not fit.
Matthew 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Jesus cleared that up very nicely in Matthew. There are many, many misquotes that people use to justify what is wrong with the bible. These misquotes only further confuse people. A wise man will use different bible interpretations to make his own determination of what he believes. Some of the words are different, but the doctrine remains the same.

0 Replies

If one believes that God created heaven and earth and all that is int it, what does it matter if he created it in 7 literal days or over a time period where 1 day equals 100,000 of our days. He still created it. If only Noah's immediate family were left after the flood, who wrote the rest of the bible? How do we know that the flood destroyed the world? Why could it not have been the area that God was concerned about at the time? We not only have translation problems, but interpretations of the translations that were interpreted to be translated. Confusing, isn't it. Many things are figurative, not literal. When revelation speaks of the 144,000 is that a literal number? Did people really live to 900 years of age? Until a few hundred years ago, people thought the world was flat. They knew that there was a moon, sun and stars, but they thought they would fall off the edge of the earth. God did not write the bible. We do not know the names of the authors (well, maybe a few). This does not prevent a christian from believing what they believe. Neither should it be any prove for a non believer to ridicule believers. Christianity is based on faith. We can read what faith is in the 1st verse of the 11th chapter of Hebrews. The absolute truth will be known when Jesus returns to take home his own.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Mills75 wrote:
Fundamentalist Christians really are the fringe of Christianity (though they do seem to get more press). The specific version of the Bible that these folks consider sacred is the King James version (and, of course, King James made absolutely sure it was an absolutely faithful interpretation of the Bible into English). Of course, an even more obvious problem are the contradictions--how can you take the whole Bible as literal when it contradicts itself (e.g., 'turn the other cheek' vs. 'an eye for an eye').

Mills' example does not fit.
Matthew 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Jesus cleared that up very nicely in Matthew. There are many, many misquotes that people use to justify what is wrong with the bible. These misquotes only further confuse people. A wise man will use different bible interpretations to make his own determination of what he believes. Some of the words are different, but the doctrine remains the same.

This example fits remarkably well.

Evangelical Christians (this is the "mainstream" American brand of Christianity, i.e. Dobson and Graham etc.) reject or ignore or exmplain away the "don't resist evil" thing all the time.

Some of my family goes to a church that passes out Christian Coalition propaganda calling on Christians ensure "self-defense" by opposing gun control. These folk also are in favor of harsh treatment of detainees in Guantanamo and capital punishment.

Go figure.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Your example does not fit.
Matthew 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Jesus cleared that up very nicely in Matthew. There are many, many misquotes that people use to justify what is wrong with the bible. These misquotes only further confuse people. A wise man will use different bible interpretations to make his own determination of what he believes. Some of the words are different, but the doctrine remains the same.

"And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
-- Exodus 21: 23-25

"Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him."
-- Leviticus 24: 20

Jesus didn't clear anything up, but rather contradicted centuries of Hebrew law. Those laws given to Moses by Yahweh were meant to be enforced literally. Now Jesus also meant what he said to be taken literally. The point isn't to discredit Christianity or poke fun at Christians, but to discredit the notion that the Bible should be taken literally in its entirety.

0 Replies

Mills75 wrote:

Jesus didn't clear anything up, but rather contradicted centuries of Hebrew law. Those laws given to Moses by Yahweh were meant to be enforced literally. Now Jesus also meant what he said to be taken literally. The point isn't to discredit Christianity or poke fun at Christians, but to discredit the notion that the Bible should be taken literally in its entirety.

I refer you to Galatians 3:23-25: "However, before the faith arrived, we were being guarded under law, being delivered up together into custody, looking to the faith that was destined to be revealed. 24 Consequently the Law has become our tutor leading to Christ, that we might be declared righteous due to faith. 25 But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a tutor." The law was impossible for imperfect humans to follow. However, Jesus met the requirements of the law and so was able to offer up a perfect sacrifice for mankind's benefit.

What about the harsh judgements and punishments of the law?
Remember that God intended Adam and Eve to live forever and bear children, extending the Garden of Eden over the entire earth. If Adam and Eve had not sinned, they would still be here and there would never have been any of those harsh actions. So, we can say the lesson learned here is God's view of the seriousness and consequences of sin.

All those who died without accurate knowledge of God are promised a resurrection in John 5:28,29 where they will be given the opportunity to live the life Adam and Eve lost.

So, the NT does indeed fulfill and 'wrap up' the OT.

0 Replies

Chai Tea wrote:

neologist wrote:
The bible was not written as a scientific treatise or for the exclusive use of a priesthood. Most of the translations are faithful to the original texts; so you should be able to find the truth in any of them.

Also, the truth should be evident early in the presentation. Remember the word 'gospel' means 'good news'.

well thanks, but this does not address my subject.
actually, it's an excellant example of what I mentioned above regarding following a different agenda.
For instance, the comment that most texts remain faithful to the original.
I'm just supposed to accept that with no proof?

I am not looking for encouragement to read the bible, or study the gospels. I'm looking to have my original posting discussed. I suppose I can say I am not looking for spiritual guidance, but for the reason some people believe literally in the bible, unless is gets interpreted differently along the line, which are quite opposite takes on it, from my understanding.
What I'm asking is not that complicated -

I did not mean to be as involved as this, but I am not surprised. By being vague with replies I against my better judgement need to keep trying to clarify, reword something that started out being very simple.

Perhaps we need to hear from those who DO believe in the literal interpretation of the bible. In other words, the type of person I am addressing my thread to.

Any takers

Hi Chai Tea,

The point I tried to explain was I don't think you will find a person who truly believes that EVERY passage of the Bible is to be understood literally.

Nearly everyone agrees that some passages are understood as figures of speech, parables, etc.

Which ones and how many? That's where the differences begin.

But if you are trying to get someone to argue that ALL of the Bible is literal, your search may be fruitless. Literally.

As far as encouraging you to read the Bible, if your object is to understand it, sorry I don't know of any other way. (I'd like to earn a million dollars without working, too. But I don't think that's gonna happen either.)

If you want to address a specific passage and why it is interpreted literally (or not), then present an example. Don't throw a laundry list out there, because any reply would have to be longer than most folks would want to read. But one at a time, go.

0 Replies

Mills75 wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
Your example does not fit.
Matthew 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Jesus cleared that up very nicely in Matthew. There are many, many misquotes that people use to justify what is wrong with the bible. These misquotes only further confuse people. A wise man will use different bible interpretations to make his own determination of what he believes. Some of the words are different, but the doctrine remains the same.

"And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
-- Exodus 21: 23-25

"Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him."
-- Leviticus 24: 20

Jesus didn't clear anything up, but rather contradicted centuries of Hebrew law. Those laws given to Moses by Yahweh were meant to be enforced literally. Now Jesus also meant what he said to be taken literally. The point isn't to discredit Christianity or poke fun at Christians, but to discredit the notion that the Bible should be taken literally in its entirety.

Things changed with the coming of Christ. The New Testament takes over from the Old Testament and Jesus gives an update, if you will, to the old laws. You also have the 10 commandments from the old testament. Nine of the 10 have thou shalt not with the only thou shall being to love your mother and father. Jesus shortened these too when he said that there are 2 commandments which cover all things. I paraphrase... Love the Lord God with all your heart strength and mind and love your neighbour as yourself.

0 Replies

Jesus also fulfilled the law (covenant) and instituted a new law (covenant).

1 Reply

I would make a distinction between the parables told by Jesus (which were presented as parables Jesus told to make a point) and the parts that are either represented as doctrine or history.

The Sermon on the Mount should be obeyed by anyone who calls a Christian, but again... it is pretty well ignored by most and the Christian Coalition and other American Christians work against the principles of these words of Christ.

The Old Testament presents a problem-- in it, God orders Genocide. I always found it very difficult to equate the loving New Testament God with a God who sometimes acted in ways we would now consider barbaric.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

I would make a distinction between the parables told by Jesus (which were presented as parables Jesus told to make a point) and the parts that are either represented as doctrine or history.

The Sermon on the Mount should be obeyed by anyone who calls a Christian, but again... it is pretty well ignored by most and the Christian Coalition and other American Christians work against the principles of these words of Christ.

The Old Testament presents a problem-- in it, God orders Genocide. I always found it very difficult to equate the loving New Testament God with a God who sometimes acted in ways we would now consider barbaric.

Martin had the same problem:

Martin Luther wrote:

If by any effort I could conceive how God, Who shows so much anger and iniquity, could be merciful and just, there would be no need of faith.

It is no wonder Frank is stuck on the same straw man Luther provides.

What is often forgotten is the Satan is the God of this world. He intervened between God and humanity with his challenge in the Garden of Eden that humans (under Satan's direction?) would be better off deciding good and evil for themselves.

All of the misery recounted in the OT is a direct consequence of the Edenic rebellion. None of it is God's fault. The harsh judgements recorded in the OT simply reflect God's understanding of sin and its consequences.

I know that may sound as if I am unfeeling and somehow approve of all that has transpired. I assure you I am deeply hurt by it. But I put the blame where it belongs.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

I would make a distinction between the parables told by Jesus (which were presented as parables Jesus told to make a point) and the parts that are either represented as doctrine or history.

The Sermon on the Mount should be obeyed by anyone who calls a Christian, but again... it is pretty well ignored by most and the Christian Coalition and other American Christians work against the principles of these words of Christ.

The Old Testament presents a problem-- in it, God orders Genocide. I always found it very difficult to equate the loving New Testament God with a God who sometimes acted in ways we would now consider barbaric.

The Old Testament obviously presents many difficult passages. However, I am not going to second guess God's decision to eradicate a society which practiced child prostitution as temple worship; and human sacrifice, again primarily children.

0 Replies

Bible Interpretation - Part 2

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know